Tuesday, January 12, 2016

Obama gives the Saudis the Israel treatment

In the aftermath of the Iranian attack on Saudi Arabia's embassies, Lee Smith writes that the Obama administration has given the Saudis contemptuous treatment that has only been matched by Obama's treatment of one other ally: Israel.

President Obama has said that the United States shouldn't take part in a
sectarian war. White House officials have let on that it's wisest for
the United States to stand aside while extremists from both sects kill
each other off. But the administration has effectively sided across the
region with Iran and its allies, including Hezbollah and Iranian-backed
Shiite militias in Iraq, and even the Revolutionary Guard Corps itself,
providing air cover for the operations of Quds Force chief Qassem
Suleimani in Iraq. John Kerry has finally admitted that the
administration has no interest in toppling dictator Bashar al-Assad,
Iran's ally in Damascus. As Obama has explained, the White House
acknowledges Iranian interests in Syria — which happen to include
shipping missiles to Hezbollah to point at Israel.

With the Nimr affair, the Obama administration again showed its
preference for Iran. After the Saudi embassy and consulate were torched,
the first statement the State Department released made no mention of
the attacks but questioned the wisdom of executing Nimr. Officials were
eager to put distance between the United States and the Saudis, claiming
the administration had tried to dissuade Riyadh but to no avail.

Why was the White House effectively
backing Iran's position, a self-arrogated "right" to have a say in the
fate of a citizen of another country? After all, Iranian foreign
minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tells Kerry that the fate of
Iranian-American Washington Post reporter Jason Rezaian is none of America's business since he's an Iranian national.

"Shortly after they started getting
questions about the incident, the administration began furiously
briefing reporters against the Saudis," says Omri Ceren, an analyst with
the Israel Project. "It's difficult to think of any other country, with
the obvious exception of Israel, that's ever received that kind of
treatment from the White House's communications team." Large parts of
the American press and foreign policy community took their cue from the
White House and went on the offensive against Saudi Arabia. The
fundamental theme was that Americans share many values with Iran, but
not with the Saudis. This, though neither Riyadh nor Washington are in
the habit of directing their citizens to attack embassies.

Saudi Arabia is an often trying U.S.
ally, unfree, a violator of human rights, with private citizens who back
terrorism. But for the last decade, Saudi Arabia has been a partner in
the war on terror. Most of the 46 others executed with Nimr were Sunni
Islamists, including al Qaeda members. "Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef
has an impeccable record in fighting Islamists," says Hussain
Abdul-Hussain, Washington bureau chief of the Kuwaiti newspaper Al Rai. "Now Saudi has its Islamists on the run and sees Iran as the main threat they have to deal with."

Abdul-Hussain says that this new policy
focus is also partly due to the difference between the former king,
Abdullah, and the current ruler, Salman. "Abdullah didn't want to get
involved in regional politics. But with Salman, the White House has
asked the Saudis to do so many things and carry the ball on their own —
whether it's Syria, Yemen, or to stand up to Iran. But now the
administration is saying they don't like it that way. If you're Saudi,
it seems that no matter what you do, the Americans won't like it."

What's especially peculiar about the
White House's attitude, says Abdul-Hussain, is that the Saudis are a
status quo power that, in its foreign policy, essentially plays by
Western rules. "They believe in the nation-state. For instance, they
gave the Lebanese Army billions of dollars to buy weapons from France in
order to buttress a national institution. The Iranians are a militia
state that supports militias around the region. In Iran, the supreme
leader is more powerful than the president, the IRGC is stronger than
the army."

Exporting the Islamic Revolution means
replicating that system elsewhere. In Lebanon, Hezbollah is stronger
than the army. Hassan Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, makes foreign
policy, not the Lebanese prime minister. "Iran is doing the same in
Iraq," says Abdul-Hussain, "where they back the popular militias, which
are stronger than the central government in Baghdad."

It's hardly a surprise that the regime
in Tehran continues to violate international laws and norms, laying
siege to diplomatic missions and testing ballistic missiles in violation
of U.N. Security Council resolutions. The revolution has always aimed
to overthrow the existing order of the region and the rest of the world.
What's striking is not just that the White House has turned on so many
American regional partners, from Israel to Saudi Arabia, or that it's
undone an American system that took 70 years to build, but that it so
often ends up taking Iran's side.

0 Comments:

Links to this post:

About Me

I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com